tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 6, 2012 6:00am-7:00am EDT
worse the more i say it. they are voluntarily suggested and themselves -- setting themselves to monitor. i will start with a few questions for each of the panelists and then go to questions from the audience. john, i wanted to start with you. you talked about the national security side of this. we have had a lot of conversation on the privacy side of this. . .
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> by consolation, i think the best minds in the business are on the case. that's the people at the f.d.a. who i am sure are working hard and i think they will come up with a reasoned approach. but the shear mathematics of the numbers means we will have hiccups along the way.
let's hope they are not too much. the other thing i can say, if we reduce drones, the security concerns become reduced, pu so does the -- but so does the innovation that acome anies them. obviously, we have to have a pursuant -- prudent eye toward the safety issues that we talked about. >> when you think about it, when you are thinking about the opportunities that are important, to open the skies, presumably you are not thinking about the set of things that catherine and ken are anxiously wringing their hands about. whether it is peeping toms or government surveillance of crowds without having to deploy personnel.
so what are the things we should be excited about here? >> an oilpipeline. there is also in the law enforcement field, i think there are small police departments that wouldn't necessarily be able to afford their own helicopter, but in a hostage situation, they could provide information. there is really a long list of these very beneficial commercial things. the other thing is, and i alluded to it in my opening remarks, there is a stunning amount of innovation that's going on in the drone world, be it with formal companies, some of which i answered before are attending this hon -- attending this, and this is the way it has always worked. back in the 1950's, it was the space program. and i would argue that in 2010 drones are equivalent to the
space program. they will spin out in beneficial ways that we can hardly imagine here. so for all those reasons, i think it is important to encourage them. >> i was struck when you were talking, it is arguably not a contradiction, but it is certainly an anomoly. you are describing the great promise of drones for purposes of government oversight. and a great terror of drones in the hands of government. i was trying to think of what the analogy for that is that we have done in the past. where we said what a wonderful technology to use to spy on government, and we are excited about it, as long as government doesn't use it to spy on us. and i am curious just for your thoughts on that, whether there are analogs for that where we said we love this in the hands of private parties and we do not like it in the hands of
government. and whether in any other area that has been a sustainable line for us to take. >> you know, i think you are right, it is a conundrum what to do about that. i think everyone's ideal solution would be to promote the good and positive technology uses of this technology with none of the abusive ones, but of course it is difficult to do that. i think in some ways this echos the battles in which the aclu lost about surveillance cameras. the aclu does not like the fact that it is difficult to walk down the street without having your image taken by tens or hundreds of surveillance cameras. i think that's where the aclu has been a staunch defender of the ability of private citizens to take photograph friday, particularly -- particularly in
the open air and put that in the hands of government. flying a drone for commercial purposes it is going to be difficult to argue that the police who are investigating potentially serious crimes can't take advantage of the same technology. i think the argument that the aclu and other civil libertarians make is that the police are different because they have powers over us that other private individuals do not have. >> but this is an example, though. the police -- for those of you that don't know, there was a real estate agent in los angeles that was disciplined for using a drone to take airline photos of the house that he was trying to sell.
but the thing that comes to mind is the anger that people felt toward the ricks on the f.b.i. using google searches under the old version of the levy guidelines after 9/11. the f.b.i. was the one group of people in the country that can't google your name and see what comes up. i wonder if you end up in a situation in which, to go to something that ken said, that you know, you have this sort of rerestrictive set of rules on the basis that the police are different until the day that something really bad happens and then you really can't sustain them because you are actually -- what you are preventing them from doing is what all of us can do. go to brook stone and buy this little 300 -- $300 thing that
you can control with your iphone. >> the next time you should be beam thg from your drone. >> exactly. well, we will. >> and we will list it on your expense report. >> i'm not sure if the question should go -- who the question should go to. ken's caution ri tale is look how fantastically weird my mother's reaction to caller i.d. was 30 or 40 years ago to turning off the ringer and how absurd and how it is crazy to think we are really going to anticipate the way we feel about this stuff once it is integrated into society. you can't really anticipate it. and paul's caution ri --
cautionary tale that here is an elite government group that didn't think it through and it crashes and burns. and ken sort of comes did i by the end of his remarks, we have to think this stuff through in advance. i am wondering, is it realistic to actually think it through? is it something that whatever judgments we come to today, sitting here in an f.a.a. rule-making in congress, we're going to be your mother, you know, 30 years from now, people will be saying isn't it quaint that they thought of dwrones x, y, and z? >> well, i guess my answer to you is that there are no new questions, only the same question over and over again.
i mean, the concept of government abuse of a new technology is as old as the dispute in london about arming the police, and probably has antecedents to the time for the first time someone put someone in charge of hurting the tribe or something like that. it seems to me that you can and should anticipate the potential for abuse. but instead of relying upon inefficiency and resource inefficiencies, which is how we kind of defaulted, to protect against these abuses, you have to turn that around and do the harder stuff, which is training, hiring, oversight, regulation. it is not easy. it changes over time as the technology changes, but we don't
disarm the police because of the potential abuse of the police's use of weapons. we hire good guys and give them training. we have internal affairs that examines every shooting. we discipline the guys that do it badly and we fire the guys that do it badly more than once. you know, that model will apply to the use of drones at least in the government sector. the private sector stuff that ken was talking about, you have to figure out a different model. but in terms of governmental activity, that model addresses the problem, and you have to invest the resources, and figure out what the rules are. you know, maybe it is that no police force can look in a window without a warrant, but
they can fly up 200 feet between 200 and 400 feet only. maybe that's the rule. i don't know the rules yet, because i don't know the technology. and it will change next week or next year. >> it is going to be instrumental. so going to the question, the responses need to be instrumental as well. they don't need to, in every case, be reactive. meaning asomething happens that suspends people's motion to defend their privacy on the one hand or things people argue they are able to do in the public spaces on the other. i wouldn't want to see a sort of regime develop, that develops entirely reactively on addressing these things. i think there is room for trying
to think through some of this on the front end and think of questions that are already starting to arrive. i am committed to the idea that this exists out of existing traditional bodies of law. particularly things, as i mentioned, some forms of tort or things like that. and i'm not sure that i really see -- we know what happens in these cases. there is some horrific thing that happens that involves drones together and some young person tossing himself or herself off of a roof in despair and then there is a reaction that enacts sanctions and all sorts of things like that. that, i think, would be a very bad approach to this. i think if we can anticipate some of those swayings on an
evolving basis and try to are -- have a discussion about what trade-offs really have to be included. >> i'm going to go to some questions. i'll start with a twitter question. when i call on you, start by saying who you are. >> we have our first question from matthew in urbana, illinois, and he has a question about using drones as a tool of free speech. how would the argument that journalism has prior restraint versus regulations and privacy play out? >> well, let me take a little bit of a crack at that. others that do first amendment law may have more answers on that. first of all, it may have to be,
just as with a lot of aspects of journalism, there may be legal information on how information gets collected. it would be very hard to argue that once you have obtained certain information, barring certain extreme cases, that it would be proper to even if contained i will little legally with a drone, that you would enjoy the publication of it. do people generally agree with that? >> i think that is exactly right. the press can't beat information out of someone, and they can't engage in breaking and entering. it is still a crime, even if they are the press. but, you know, we have a large body of law that says if the press receives information, even if it is collected in an illegal manner, even if it is leaked in violation of classification rules that have been around for years, that we're not going to
restrain the press. this actually plays very much into my mantra which is there is nothing new under the sun and this is an evolution. i would assume the same rules go to drones. >> hello. i'm stu magnus from "national defense magazine." can you explain the deadline in terms of technology. there are a lot of issues to be worked out. you mentioned the sense of avoid technology, and also the regulatory part.
there is a lot of associations out there, the pilots association, air traffic controllers association who say this is going to take a rewriting of the way we do things and a lot of consideration. so i guess that's my basic question. is the congressional mandate realistic? >> i can't answer all of those things. that would be a very long answer. we would all fall asleep. for those of you on the web cast, i'm sure we will be making it available, it is a two-page sheet prepared by the center for technology and democracy, and he has done us the favor of going into the legislation and doing the computations of 2 0 days after an accident. what does that mean? in some there are two broad class yeffs drones addressed. there is what is called civil and aviation systems.
these are drones operated by commercial enterprises and the lack and then there are public unmanned aviation systems which are operated by the police and state government et cetera. so with reference to commercial unmanned drones, this is the date after which there will be extradited insurance for the use of those -- expedited insurance for the use of those drones. for november 12, 2012, where there will be a comprehensive plan which will call for the integration of drones into the national air space by december 2015. also, early this year there will be drones allowed at that date.
there are 10 or 15 other complex, overlapping headlines. >> only in washington is three-plus years not enough time. it is a complex issue, and it deserves a great deal of attention. but my own sense is, if the f.a.a. has a will to get it done, it and -- it can and should be able to get it done. if it does not, it could miss the deadline. that's the nature of politics. but three and a half years to think this through is not an unreasonable expectation.
>> what is your thinking on the potential uses that foreign governments might make of drones within the u.s.? flins, spying? will that give them an advantage ? or to track and kill. >> for those of you that don't know, ken has written a great deal about the law of u.s.-targeted killings, including but not limited to by drones. so what happens when the technology is huge enough and the air space is open enough that other governments want to get in on the action here? >> i think when it comes to other governments, everything i said about private party to
private party stuff, meaning it needs to evolve incrementally, none of that do i think applies to foreign government acts in the united states. i think it is a perfectly appropriate area for the u.s. government to come down and say either nobody does this at all, or if you do, you have to come and have a long conversation about what you are doing it for and why, and surveillance of individuals is going to fall under a whole series of national security concerns, and all of that. and obviously killing somebody is completely off the map. we regard that as a hostile act, possibly into war. this sort of setting, the question is about surveillance. and i don't think that the united states government has any reason to put up with surveillance using high-tech by foreign governments with their citizens or ours.
i think any of these things you have raised here about the uses of these things by various folks that aply to foreign governments at -- apply to foreign governments at all. >> do we have another twitter question? >> yes, this is a question from amy in washington, d.c. she's an attorney with epic privacy. she wants to know, should there be use limitations to prevent drones bought or licensed for the narrow purpose to be used wisely. >> interesting question. the more sophisticated drones are excellent information collecting systems. let's say you are the weather channel acquiring something for meet logical -- meteorlogical
data. what happens with the data that you collect that has potentially other applications. whoever wants to jump in on that , feel free. >> this has come up to a certain extent with border patrol. in december, the "l.a. times" a reporter named brian bennett came out with a fantastic piece about how they were using its drones -- putting its drone technology at the assistance of local law enforcement agencies. some members of congress expressed c oofment nsternation that this technology had been
created with one purpose and was now being used for a law enforcement purpose by a local north dakota law enforcement agency that they certainly did not anticipate when they authorized the program. i think congress thinks limiting principles would be appropriate. >> this is the classic example of this. paul, when he was in government dealt a lot with data collected for one purpose that, you know, the department of homeland security would find it would be really good to use, say, passenger manifest data that people give to airlines to find out -- to use for countercounterterrorism purposes. it is really good to know who is on airlines, right? you have dealt a lot with this question of whether can you
reprogram data collected for oun purpose for a different purpose? is it different if it is a private party with a drone or is it depsh is this just nothing new unthe sun. y hate being predict quabble. nonetheless you correctly predicted where i would come down. to my mind, there is -- the right way to address this is in the consequences at the end. think of what we're talking about. we have the c.d.p. we have a u.a.v. it is not being used full time. it is a valuable asset. notwithstanding the fact they are cleap cheaper than helicopters, they aren't free. it can be used for another poip perfectly lawful purpose. if the north dakota police want to use it to sur veil their wives on their shopping trips,
that's another thing. if the north dakota police wants to use it in a hostage situation or follow a suspected drug dealer, that's obviously a good and lawful purpose in pursuit of of a legitimate public end. why would we begin from a premise of purposefully making ourselves inefficient, purposefullying -- purposefully making ourselves limited. i can certainly see in the end saying that that evidence might not be used in court or something like that, if you feel real strongly about the particular use. but to my mind, the right answer is to define, what are the lawful uses. no, c.d.p. can not use this to look in on a local meeting of the north dakota tea party or north dakota aclu.
to -- no, they can't use it for purposes that would be outs the zone. if the end is legitimate, it seems to me we make a mistake in suing. the right method is the consequence at the other end. how that is used. whether or not we -- that evidence shouldn't be used unless it reaches a reasonable suspicious standard or some eliminationation, some gate of some sort, a date to be termed obviously as time goes on as the technology gets developed. >> i'll try to keep it brief. i think we could go around and around on this. we place limits on technology on this all the time. for instance you can't do a
title three wire tap on people in all circumstances. there are specific crimes for which you can use that technology and others for which you cannot. i think there is a place for restrictions. can i just mention one other thing. on the aclu caller i.d. question, it is a side issue, we actually still don't have caller i.d. on our main switchboard line, and the reason for that is so that people can call us and tell us stuff anonymously and know they can be secure in doing that. >> sometimes the aclu gets described as outside the mainstream on a variety of issues. i can't imagine there is a single issue on which that is truer. >> i am a lawyer in private practice here in washington.
the faa has this coming up. it is all different because we have concerns about safety, national security, and privacy. my question is, what do you want the f.a.a. to do in august of this year about opening up the system for safe drones? one choice is to allow commercial drones with line of site and under 400-feet restrictions, so the california real estate agent can take pictures of his houses or sort of adopt the regime of only approving operators on a case-by-case basis after showing it is in the public's interest. what do you want them to do?
>> i'm not going to answer it in full. i think it would be a mistake to allow people to operate in areas without attention to the dangers related to thafment i will give an example. the academy of air naught naughtics, which is the national community-based organization. has long recognized the importance of not operating platforms in that general size range over populated areas. i think that is a point of view and experience that needs to be respected. i don't trust that all agents will respect it, even if they have the best intensions. i think we need to be careful not to rush headlong into that. >> what is the size cutoff? i mean, everybody -- you can go to a hobbyist store and buy model aircrafts below a certain size that you can fly at
reasonably impressive distance that doesn't raise anybody's alarm bells. realistcally, what's the difference between the sort of thing nobody is worried about? >> one easy answer to that is thatted academy of modern air naughtics has extremely good safety guidelines. and anything operating in accordance with their rules i'm not worried about at all. so anything compliant with the national community-based organization is absolutely fine.
anything that weighs 500 pounds or 50 pounds, that potentially could raise concerns. that would be potential cause for discussion. >> does anyone else have thoughts on what the f.a.a. should or should not do by august? >> i do not think it should touch any of the issues that i raised. i think the private-party to private-party stuff is not the f.a.a.'s area. they are not a privacy agency. they have a different set of concerns. and those concerns very clearly are what's going to be far and away a hugely difficult point. i think there is a sizable concern among the model airplane community.
these folks are actually concerned about what happens if you sort of toss aside the informal standards that have been raised by these folks and sort of open things up to sort of a wild west out there. it wouldn't take very many safety incidents of a serious kind that could sort of shut the whole thing back down the other way. >> my name is hakuchi. i am a japanese scholar and working at johns hopkins university. i would like to ask you about the most you use technology in the history of the war.
so what is the achievement of the drone technology? it is i think now we have lots of pesticides but also such as drone technology stimulating anti-american emotion or hostility of local peoples or taliban? >> the focus of this sent on the domestic side, not military politics abroad. that said, when people hear the word "drones" they don't think of news gathering. they think about predators.
very briefly, what's the -- and all of you, what's the -- to bring it back to the subject, how does that legacy and origin affect the domestic discussion? >> i'm going to look at my name in the program and a direct e-mail about that, and i would be happy to talk about that at length. i think it does drag us away from the domestic side a lot. i'm going to punt in part. the one thing i would say about this is that there is an enormous technological feeding back and forth of the development of the technologies in ways that the requirements of
the battle field and particularly the use of drones as not simply another air platform and air platform in conventional war but the use of drones as being a mechanism for gathering intelligence and using force based on the intelligence gathered puts an enormous amount of pressure on the development not so much of weapons. the weapons themselves are sha ringing and getting smaller. but the real developments underway are in the ability to have software that will wind you have processing what's coming through an increasingly sophisticated and varied kinds of sensors. that feeds back into domestic fear. particularly all these things that drives innovation in the commercial sector and all the good things we'll wind up seeing in the wail of innovation.
in afghanistan, in pakistan, we would like to be able, ideally, to use drones to get some idea of how many civilian rs inside the building. we would like to be able to use drone sensors to get some mogse notion of what the load-bearing impact is of those particular walls in relation to hitting it with a particular kind of weapon and the collateral damage that is likely to cause. all of which has enormously important and beneficial commercial applications back on the domestic sphere, all of which has to compound your fears as to what government agencies could do with that kind of ability domestically as well. i think it has to be seen as feeding on ways that are both positive and negative.
>> we have another question in the back. >> we have a twitter question. to what extent does this mandate privacy? and a related question from a higher education reporter for "u.s. news," and he asks "is there a need for the government to be able to detect and track drones at will, and do you think they should be licensed by the f.a.a. referring to commercial or private drones? >> who wants to take either of those. >> the one-line answer i have won't surprise anyone by notice. i don't think the f.a.a. should be getting involved in privacy issues. i think it has its hands full on effing it is correctly trying to do on all of this stuff. >> do you have a an idea to what
extent the f.a.a.'s mandate includes the privacy issues we're talking about? >> the f.a.a.'s mandate includes protecting people and property on the ground. that has been interpreted as a safety mandate by and ladge. tr -- there are old cases dating back to the 1970's in which that mandate included things dealing with the environmental impacts of air traffic. you know, if the mandate can encompass environmentalism it can arguably impact people on the ground. i am skeptical the f.a.a. would want to interpret its mandate in that direction. i imagine this is an area where congress may need to do something. c.d.t. has suggested that at the
least the f.a.a. should conduct a privacy impact assessment to look at privacy questions. i think it is unfortunate that the au.s. should have a privacy investigator that systematically investigates actions on on privacy. >> i agree with catherine. i would put it a different way. i can imagine no worse forum for discussing privacy concerns than the f.a.a. it is not built for that. it is like asking the e.p.a. to think of national security concerns or the department of commerce to think about education, though they do a little bit. i mean, it is apples and clowns, even. i do think the privacy issues are vital, and if you don't
think about them, you will get the wrong answer, because you will end end up losing support for the programs no matter how they are formulated. the f.a.a. is great at safety issues. it is great at air traffic control issues. i would not -- i would want us to have that privacy discussion somewhere else. in an ideal world in the privacy and oversight board that congs authorized in 2007 and still has not started. >> i'm a technology analyst. sometimes we have a habit of throwing out the baby with the bath water. here we talk about privacy issues and those sorts of things. there are times whether a lot of those can be used legitimately for rescue purposes, that sort
of thing, so fire departments can speak to one another. in new orleans after katrina, they were not allowed to fly drones with cameras which would have been ideal to sort of help control what was going on. instead somebody got clever and just taped them to the skids of the helicopters. is anything going on to ensure these valuable uses are not caught up and tossed overboard because of other concerns? >> i agree completely. there is a huge value. john has talked about the service radical -- value and you are talking about the safety value. we should authorize the good uses and be careful of the bad uses. my fear is that by not acknowledging the legitimacy of
catherine's fears, you are now per son identifying all privacy, catherine, sorry. by not acknowledging the legitimacy of catherine's fears up front we will wind up in the same place we were with the n.h.o. we would have had great uses for national technical means in katrina and we were not permitted those because of fears of big brotherhood. >> stepping out of my role as moderator for a moment, i would add there is something we are doing to ensure we do not throw out the baby with the bath water, which is that congress stepped in and ordered the f.a.a. to have a set of rule makings on the subject. that was a deliberate effort to jump start what had been perceived as a sort of stalled set of profits.
yes? >> my name is dory. do you know of any other countries grappling with how to make domestic use of drones that we could look to for an example? >> i don't have a full answer to that, but i can say there have been estimates that the drone industry would be $1 had you been hundred million spent on drones by the end of this decade. it is an norm yause global industry. dozens of countries. i have been told australia has some innovative uses. pretty much any country with a technology infrastructure is getting into the act. we'll see all sorts of flavors, but i don't have the specifics. >> i'm steve lacarr and i'm a
lawyer in private practice in d.c. i find the center for technology and domestic legislation to be pretty good. but what is happening with congress? are they doing anything to have oversight hearings on this? >> privacy was not included really as a discussion topic, i don't think, in the most recent round of legislation that was passed. you know, there has been interesting developments since then, and my other panelists here who spend more time in d.c. than i do may have more insight than i do. i think there has been an up surge in concern about privacy. the trade organizations looking to promote the usage of drones have gotten concerned about the impact it has on their industry. they have been approaching
various prifes organizes and congressional staffers to try to see whether there is something they can do pre-emptively to find some potential common ground here so that this technology can move forward and not be completely sometimied -- stymied by privacy concerns. i don't know if others know more. >> in the far back on the left. >> i am with "unmanned systems magazine." i was wondering just because of the pervasiveness with privacy issues with the internet, what sort of lessons learned do you think we can bring from that industry into our discussion about privacy in unmanned systems? >> what a question question. we already learned about caller i.d. and turning the ringer off,
but how does the internet play into this? >> one observation is, that who could have known back in 1995 that such a thing as social web sites could have existed? with drones i think it would be prumtwuss -- presumptuous for any of us to say we know what the concerns will be. humility is probably important as we move forward and knowing that we cannot predict. >> we have about two minutes left. why don't i give each of our panelists a chance to wrap up. ken, do you want to start? >> i guess the thing i would emphasize and go to the last question asked here, is when it comes to private person to private person stuff i emphasize it as though it is individual to individual. but there will be a whole different layer of that large
scale institutions corporations. , nongovernmental, but private. second, the other thing i would stress would be that although there are certain functions about drones in the private setting which are about drones, where they go how long they are there, all those kinds of questions, most of the questions that i think will drive privacy concerns this way will be the ways in which drone technology is embedded with other technology and serves as a leveraging platform for things like the web for forms of surveillance and all of that. it is the leveraging package that concerns all of us. >> i think i will start where i began and say, this is a unique opportunity for us to try to build privacy protections into the regulations that govern drones. we ought to be taking advantage of that.
again, the aclu is not opposed to the use of this technology. as others have mentioned, there are other valuable uses. if we can think through these things at the outset, everyone will be better off. >> well, i think two points. the first one, picking up on the very last question, is that i think the right answer here is developing the right systems. static rules about privacy or ution will be overtaken as the rules about safety. and we tried to address internet usage with a concrete set of rules and all of a sudden, big daddy is flooding around the ramparts of privacy concerns. i don't know what the answer is going to be in terms of dropse drones because i don't know where the drones will be. the answer is system to system to system oversight. the other point i would make is ken, if you fly your drone over my house, i'm shooting it dune.
>> counter measures. >> just like any technology, there are benefits that out-weigh the downside. i have confidence it will all work out. >> thank you all for coming. [applause] >> this year's student cam competition asks students across the country what part of the constitution was important to them and why. today's third-prize winner chose the second amendment. >> an increasingly controversial topic in the united states today is gun control. this has stemmed from the second amendment, the right to bear arms. the second amendment of the constitution was created to protect the people in case the government became too powerful, the people would have the opportunity to strike down an oppressive government. this provision of the
constitution was ratified in 1791. the prite to bear arms the founding fathers included it in the first set of amendments in the constitution. >> it is placed as a marker of the possibility of what has to be admitted is the violent over throw of an oppressive government. >> behind the words of this seemingly simple statement "the right to bear arms" there were hundreds of years of complex arguments ranging from all different perspectives. >> how do you define arms? >> how many guns should you be allowed to have? is the second amendment a right? >> the majority of our pro-gun factions consist of mostly conservatives. one such group is the nra, the
national rifle association. >> when the authorities can't protect you, they have no business and no authority trying to deny you the right to protect yourself. [applause] >> in defense of pro-gun advocates, respected founding fathers had much to say. >> i ask, sir, what is the militia? it is the whole people. to disarm the people is the best and most effect twal way to enslave them. >> the best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. >> firearms stand next to as important as the constitution it's sefment an armed man is a citizen. a disarmed man is a subject.
>> despite all the shootings that have occurred worldwide, such as the one at virginia tech which killed 32 innocent students, some people still hold fast to their beliefs. here's the opinion of a virginia tech student himself. >> yes, i believe it is an individual right. the second amendment states the people have the right to bear arms, which basically it means that any human being or any citizen of the united states is allowed to have a firearm. no, i was actually there for the second shooting that recently took place. no it has not altered my opinion at all. in fact it might have made my opinion stronger on the fact that i think people should have firearms. i think it is a good idea to own a firearm and also i think that
many colleges should look into allowing concealed weapons on campus. basically, i think that if people are allowed to have concealed weapons on campus, those people who are following the law are most likely just doing it for protection. i think that will enter into the minds of people that will be hostile. so if they are entering a classroom or building and thinking i want to bring in a gun and shoot someone, they may think twice about it, because they may know someone else may have a gun in here for protection. >> pro-gun activist students are very diverse. they are made up of hunters, and gun electors and even some liberals. there is a whole other side to this. that is the anti-gun rights movement.
december 6, 1989, in canada a man wanting to compact revenge on feminists killed 14 young women at a college in montreal and then committed suicide. march 1996, in britain, 16 children and their teacher were gunned down in dunblaine scottland. the shooter committed suicide. >> april 20, 1999, in the united states two high school students go on a rampage at colbine high school killing 12 students and a teacher before committing suicide. >> april 3, 2009, a man runs amuck at a welcome center in binghamton, new york. >> a student originally from korea kills 32 people at virginia state university, blacksberg, virginia.
>> shootings like these and many others have served a huge role in the ongoing gun debate. anti-gun organizations point out these shootings as acts of violence that occurred strictly because guns are easily accessible. paul helk is the act -- helmke is -- their message is this, we are many want "we are devote today creating an america free from gun violence." in one book it is asked, why not use ghandi's way. he did not have guns and he beat the british empire. here's another student from the same school with a different opinion entirely.
>> no, i don't think the second amendment is necessary. i think back when it was created back in the bill of rights the state militias were needed to fight off the federal government if they got out of hand and also to protect themselves personally. and nowadays, there is no need for that, there are no state militias or anything. except for hunting, there is no real reason. if guns were illegal, nobody would need to protect themselves from guns. yes, i would say before the tech shootings i was wavering, kind of. i didn't have too strong of an opinion. but after the possibility of harming so many people, it just makes more sense to make it illegal for students to have
their own weapon. but if the criminal had a handgun or any weapon there would be no reasons for anybody else to have one. >> we have shown you the varying view points about gun control. now it is time for you to decide. to bear arms or not to bear arms. that's the question. luckily, we live in a nation where we are entitled to our own opinion. so get educated, and get out there and express yourselves. thanks for watching. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos and continuing the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. >> several live events to tell you about this morning. the center for strategic and international studies hosts a forum on u.s. trade relations with china with a panel that includes former u.s. trade relations with the reagan, bush and clinton administrations.
also at 10:00 a.m. a panel of foreign policy experts looks at preventing nuclear terrorism. that event, part of the national press clup club's news maker series. and the u.s. institute focuses on afghan security after the u.s. departure and what role will be played. but on c-span 3 also at 10:00 eastern. >> in about 45 minutes we'll look inside the race for the presidential nomination with politico's white house correspondent mike allen. at 8:30 eastern we'll discuss the scope of student debt in the u.s. and its affect on our economy with mark kantrowitz. and we'll take your questions and comments about bullying in the nation's schools when we are joined by jack buckley